KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Who knows. With 3 40/20 games already this year, more are possible and with a player such as AD to pass off to -- he very well could so it again.
The future of DMC? (split)
- Thread starter Sac.1989
- Start date
Who knows. With 3 40/20 games already this year, more are possible and with a player such as AD to pass off to -- he very well could so it again.
eMBarkat10n
Bench
Hollinger's Analysis has Cleveland at "+4 wins". I am confused as to how this makes them "noticeably worse". Or, maybe I am missing something else???What cracks me up the most here is the "Hollinger's Analysis" bar at the bottom which adds up each players's PER and decides that you've made Cleveland noticeably worse with this trade! Not a great moment for statistical analysis.
eMBarkat10n
Bench
Good point.
No I just read it wrong. Now I'm slightly disappointed. It was much funnier when I thought the Cavs were the team at -9...
SLAB
Hall of Famer
Anyone with any sense at all knew the Kings lost the trade. You trade a talent like DeMarcus Cousins, you're the loser.
I'm not so secretly reveling in him tearing it up and his team being in a playoff race while his old team is the worst of the worst. And I can't wait to see that guy in some playoff games down the road. (Hopefully)
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
truth of the matter is, despite Cousins' godly stats...his ceiling for wins here would be 35 tops IMO with no playoff berth and not enough assets around him to make a playoff push. The Kings were doomed if they didn't and doomed if they did.
The Kings were never going to win a trade involving DeMarcus Cousins; the faithful continue to believe that the point of trading him was to acquire pieces that may make the Kings relevant at some point in the future.
I remain highly skeptical.
I remain highly skeptical.
Why? Why was his ceiling in Sacramento capped at thirty-five wins?
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
lack of talent and assets around the team
So, you're saying that you don't trust Divac to do his job?
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
He didn't trust himself apparently because he made a trade in panic
Sac.1989
Starter
We failed to build a team around the best big man in the game. It's just facepalm over facepalm. A rookie gm could do it.
To laugh at us, the front office literally bought in the best vets this offseason who would have been tailor-made for demarcus both in the locker room and on court.
Del demps isn't the greatest GM but he knows that his bigs do things better then most guards and smallball isn't all it's chalked up to be.
Both Cousins and Davis making the all star game as starters is validation enough. We always had glimpses with cousins in terms of continuity but our front office/franchise couldn't stick to one avenue and build sustainably.
No vet help and wasted draft pics. Now all of a sudden we're all about the vets, culture and making the right picks. Laughable.
Or maybe they finally learned from their mistakes.
I wish DMC all the best in the world. But the history of his time here was just too fraught with bad moves right from the beginning. It was a perfect storm of errors, and all contributed to the inevitable.
The dust is finally settling and it appears as though we may actually be at the beginning of a period of stability.
Touché.
I mean, small ball works great, when you have two of the five best shooters of all time, and the most versatile utility role player in the league, and THEN add a former league MVP, who also happens to be one of the Top Two players in the league.
Last edited:
Sac.1989
Starter
We can hope. Im staying positive (or trying to do so) until we trade George Hill for two vets who give us nothing and a 2nd rounder and everyone realizes nothing has changed (or ever will)
But thats speculating and we should just put aside our long history of ineptness and hope that things are changing because recently at least, since trading boogie, things have been ok, non withstanding the fact we should have never traded him.
Sac.1989
Starter
I'll give it to Del for swimming the other way. You cant compete with the warriors but im not convinced in everyone following them.
Cousins and Davis have the mobility of guards and pass/shoot better then the bulk of them. I like how NO are built when healthy. Continuity and defense is key. They have a strong competitive advantage which is a far-cry to how everyone else is playing and its only been two half's of a season basically.
For us the key is to get as many young pieces together and let them grow. The more on the same timeline with complimentary skills puts us in a place to really compete when the reign is over. That or move said young complimentary pieces for proven star talent and expedite.
Whoops! That was supposed to read: "two of the five best shooters of all time"...
I think that the Kings' rebuild gambit has its problems: either Divac is banking on getting a can't-miss superstar in the 2018 NBA Draft, or he's planning to build a team full of "pretty good" young guys. Teams of "pretty good" guys don't really win in the NBA, unless they are all-time elite at something, like the 2004 Pistons. And even if you guys get the superstar you're banking on in this draft, you're still putting a lot of hope in either the guys you already have being a good fit for said superstar, or that Divac will succeed at putting the right players around him. Which begs the question: if he couldn't do it the last time, why would you believe that he can do it the next time?
Sac.1989
Starter
Agreed. Its blind faith really because looking at history we havent a hope in hell of
a) grooming young talent
b) building around young talent
we have a lot of nice young pieces without a superstar, every decent team has at least one. To contend you really need two. Lets see where the future takes us
Perhaps because the atmosphere is different and/or he has learned from his mistakes, like anyone else.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
Difference in between Demps and Vlade is Demps had Anthony Davis on his roster all ready. What exactly did Vlade have at his disposal that would warrant a similar season to what the Pelicans are having now, with two all-star starters on the team and a PG who makes 125 million?
Sac.1989
Starter
Bogdan and the addition of Hill would have gone a long way towards our first playoff birth with Cousins still here. We could have easily retained Lawson also
I believe we could have added another all star caliber player with the assets we had or at least gone another season. We could have easily made a Bledsoe type deal
The reality is that a lot of damage was done Pre Vlade but it was not the time to trade Cousins. Vivek is a fool for not ponying up 200 mill and supporting a trade for his nonperforming Buddy. Its the reason why he's so quiet right now. I dont believe his pockets are as deep as necessary to sustain and afford the star players required to compete at a high level. Continually developing young kids for a fan base that is used to mediocrity is profitable and low(er) cost.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
Hill wouldn't of been much of a factor IMO and what assets were the Kings to give up to get Bledsoe? Skal, Papa, Malachi are unknowns and the Kings weren't going to trade Trill because they liked the fit next to Cousins. Lawson is out of the league and I'm sure that's for a reason. The Kings were basically stuck in no mans land and they wouldn't of scared any one for 8th seed.
Sac.1989
Starter
Could have easily made it work for the 8th seed and go from there. The point is we had a commitment from Cousins. We had time. He was not going to walk out on us, yet we chose to trade him.
Okay, I'll bite: how does the atmosphere impact his ability to do his job?
You asked a question; I posited a possible explanation. No more, no less. I'm certainly not going to go down the rabbit hole to analyze it any further.
twslam07
All-Star
I took some time to play back the past and see what COULD have happened if we kept Cousins and ended up signing him to an extension.
If we kept pace with our record at the time we traded Cousins, we would have received the 10th pick (if the lottery didn't get crazy). Considering Fox would not have dropped this far and the fact that we have Bogdanovic, Richardson, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Cousins as the core, we probably would have been looking at guys like Monk or Mitchell. For this example, let's say we drafted Mitchell (to really just show what our peak could have been) and then Mason in the 2nd round.
In free agency, let's say Collison, Gay, & McLemore walked and we retained Lawson (1 year deal w/ team option for the 2nd year) & Casspi (small 2-3 year deal) while still keeping Tolliver (was waived), Afflalo (was waived), & Barnes (was stretched) on the books. We would have had this roster going into the year:
PG - Mitchell / Mason / Lawson
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson / Afflalo
SF - Casspi / Temple / Barnes
PF - Cauley-Stein / Tolliver / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Koufos / Papagiannis
Then next year, we would have the remaining players still under contract (if Temple & Koufos opted out and we resigned Cousins to the max):
PG - Mitchell / Mason
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF - Casspi
PF - Cauley-Stein / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Papagiannis
Depending on how we did that year, we could be in position to draft a guy like Mik. Bridges, Mil. Bridges, or Knox while still having about $40 mil in cap space during the 2018 offseason. Would a team that has Mitchell, Mason, Bogdanovic, Richardson, Mil. Bridges, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Cousins be more attractive to Paul George than the Lakers or Thunder? I would think so but that's just me
.
At the end of the day we could have been looking at this team going into the 2018-19 season IF we kept Cousins and had some 20/20 hinsight:
PG - Mitchell / Mason
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF - George / Mil. Bridges / Casspi
PF - Cauley-Stein / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Papagiannis
If we kept pace with our record at the time we traded Cousins, we would have received the 10th pick (if the lottery didn't get crazy). Considering Fox would not have dropped this far and the fact that we have Bogdanovic, Richardson, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Cousins as the core, we probably would have been looking at guys like Monk or Mitchell. For this example, let's say we drafted Mitchell (to really just show what our peak could have been) and then Mason in the 2nd round.
In free agency, let's say Collison, Gay, & McLemore walked and we retained Lawson (1 year deal w/ team option for the 2nd year) & Casspi (small 2-3 year deal) while still keeping Tolliver (was waived), Afflalo (was waived), & Barnes (was stretched) on the books. We would have had this roster going into the year:
PG - Mitchell / Mason / Lawson
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson / Afflalo
SF - Casspi / Temple / Barnes
PF - Cauley-Stein / Tolliver / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Koufos / Papagiannis
Then next year, we would have the remaining players still under contract (if Temple & Koufos opted out and we resigned Cousins to the max):
PG - Mitchell / Mason
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF - Casspi
PF - Cauley-Stein / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Papagiannis
Depending on how we did that year, we could be in position to draft a guy like Mik. Bridges, Mil. Bridges, or Knox while still having about $40 mil in cap space during the 2018 offseason. Would a team that has Mitchell, Mason, Bogdanovic, Richardson, Mil. Bridges, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Cousins be more attractive to Paul George than the Lakers or Thunder? I would think so but that's just me
. At the end of the day we could have been looking at this team going into the 2018-19 season IF we kept Cousins and had some 20/20 hinsight:
PG - Mitchell / Mason
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF - George / Mil. Bridges / Casspi
PF - Cauley-Stein / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Papagiannis
I took some time to play back the past and see what COULD have happened if we kept Cousins and ended up signing him to an extension.
If we kept pace with our record at the time we traded Cousins, we would have received the 10th pick (if the lottery didn't get crazy). Considering Fox would not have dropped this far and the fact that we have Bogdanovic, Richardson, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Cousins as the core, we probably would have been looking at guys like Monk or Mitchell. For this example, let's say we drafted Mitchell (to really just show what our peak could have been) and then Mason in the 2nd round.
In free agency, let's say Collison, Gay, & McLemore walked and we retained Lawson (1 year deal w/ team option for the 2nd year) & Casspi (small 2-3 year deal) while still keeping Tolliver (was waived), Afflalo (was waived), & Barnes (was stretched) on the books. We would have had this roster going into the year:
PG - Mitchell / Mason / Lawson
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson / Afflalo
SF - Casspi / Temple / Barnes
PF - Cauley-Stein / Tolliver / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Koufos / Papagiannis
Then next year, we would have the remaining players still under contract (if Temple & Koufos opted out and we resigned Cousins to the max):
PG - Mitchell / Mason
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF - Casspi
PF - Cauley-Stein / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Papagiannis
Depending on how we did that year, we could be in position to draft a guy like Mik. Bridges, Mil. Bridges, or Knox while still having about $40 mil in cap space during the 2018 offseason. Would a team that has Mitchell, Mason, Bogdanovic, Richardson, Mil. Bridges, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Cousins be more attractive to Paul George than the Lakers or Thunder? I would think so but that's just me
At the end of the day we could have been looking at this team going into the 2018-19 season IF we kept Cousins and had some 20/20 hinsight:
PG - Mitchell / Mason
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF - George / Mil. Bridges / Casspi
PF - Cauley-Stein / Labissiere
C - Cousins / Papagiannis
And then came last night in New Orleans.
NOTE: I think discussion of DMC's future can now go in the newer thread. Last night was as shattering for DMC fans as a certain night in Dallas was for Webber fans.
Similar threads
